Tailored Self-Management App to Support Older Adults With Cancer and Multimorbidity: Development and Usability Testing.

BACKGROUND: Globally, cancer predominates in adults aged older than 60 years, and 70% of older adults have ≥1 chronic condition. Cancer self-management interventions can improve symptom management and confidence, but few interventions target the complex needs of older adults with cancer and multimorbidity. Despite growing evidence of digital health tools in cancer care, there is a paucity of theoretically grounded digital self-management supports for older adults. Many apps for older adults have not been co-designed with older adults to ensure that they are tailored to their specific needs, which would increase usability and uptake. OBJECTIVE: We aim to report on the user evaluations of a self- and symptom-management app to support older adults living with cancer and multimorbidity. METHODS: This study used Grey's self-management framework, a design thinking approach, and involved older adults with lived experiences of cancer to design a medium-fidelity app prototype. Older adults with cancer or caregivers were recruited through community organizations or support groups to participate in co-designing or evaluations of the app. Data from interviews were iteratively integrated into the design process and analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analyses. RESULTS: In total, 15 older adults and 3 caregivers (n=18) participated in this study: 10 participated (8 older adults and 2 caregivers) in the design of the low-fidelity prototype, and 10 evaluated (9 older adults and 1 caregiver) the medium-fidelity prototype (2 older adults participated in both phases). Participants emphasized the importance of tracking functions to make sense of information across physical symptoms and psychosocial aspects; a clear display; and the organization of notes and reminders to communicate with care providers. Participants also emphasized the importance of medication initiation or cessation reminders to mitigate concerns related to polypharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: This app has the potential to support the complex health care needs of older adults with cancer, creating a "home base" for symptom management and support. The findings from this study will position the researchers to conduct feasibility testing and real-world implementation.

Oncology care providers' perceptions and anticipated barriers regarding the use of geriatric assessment in routine clinic practice: A mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment (GA) is currently not a standard of cancer care across Canada. In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, there are no known formal geriatric teams in outpatient oncology settings. Therefore, it is not known whether, how, and to what extent GA is performed in oncology clinics, or what supports are needed to carry out a GA. The objective of this study was to explore Saskatchewan oncology care providers' knowledge, perceptions, and practices regarding GA, and their perceived barriers to implementing formal GA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this mixed-methods study, oncology physicians and nurses within the Saskatchewan Cancer Agency (SCA) were invited to participate in an anonymous survey and individual open-ended interview. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; free-text responses provided in the survey were summarized. Data from interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 19 physicians and 30 clinic nurses participated in the survey (response rate: 24% [physicians] and 38.0% [nurses]). In terms of cancer treatment and management, the majority (74% of physicians and 62% of nurses) stated considerations for older adults are different than younger patients. More than half (53% of physicians and 58% of nurses) reported making treatment and management decisions primarily based on judgement versus validated tools. For physicians whose practices involve prescribing chemotherapy (16/19), 75% rarely or never use validated tools (e.g., CARG, CRASH) to assess risk of chemotoxicity for older patients. Lack of time and supporting staff and feeling unsure as to where to refer older patients for help or follow-up were the most commonly voiced anticipated barriers to implementing GA. Two physicians and six nurses (n = 8) participated in the open-ended interviews. Main themes included: (1) tension between knowing the importance of GA versus capacity and (2) buy-in. DISCUSSION: Our findings review barriers and opportunities for implementing GA in oncology care in Saskatchewan and provides foundational knowledge to inform efforts to promote personalized medicine and to optimize cancer care for older adults with cancer in this region.

TOward a comPrehensive supportive Care intervention for Older men with metastatic Prostate cancer (TOPCOP3): A pilot randomized controlled trial and process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Current management of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) includes androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy (ARATs), which is associated with substantial toxicity in older adults. Geriatric assessment and management and remote symptom monitoring have been shown to reduce toxicity and improve quality of life in patients undergoing chemotherapy, but their efficacy in patients being treated with ARATs has not been explored. The purpose of this study is to examine whether these interventions, alone or in combination, can improve treatment tolerability and quality of life (QOL) for older adults with metastatic prostate cancer on ARATs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: TOPCOP3 is a multi-centre, factorial pilot clinical trial coupled with an embedded process evaluation. The study includes four treatment arms: geriatric assessment and management (GA + M); remote symptom monitoring (RSM); geriatric assessment and management plus remote symptom monitoring; and usual care and will be followed for six months. The aim is to recruit 168 patients between two cancer centres in Toronto, Canada. Eligible participants will be randomized equally via REDCap. Participants in all arms will complete a comprehensive baseline assessment upon enrollment following the Geriatric Core dataset, as well as follow-up assessments at 1.5, 3, 4.5, and 6 months. The co-primary outcomes will be grade 3-5 toxicity and QOL. Toxicities will be graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. QOL will be measured by patient self-reporting using the EuroQol 5 dimensions of health questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include fatigue, insomnia, and depression. Finally, four process evaluation outcomes will also be observed, namely feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability, along with implementation barriers and facilitators. DISCUSSION: Data will be collected to observe the effects of GA + M and RSM on QOL and toxicities experienced by older adults receiving ARATs for metastatic prostate cancer. Data will also be collected to help the design and conduct of a definitive multicentre phase III randomized controlled trial. This study will extend supportive care interventions for older adults with cancer into new areas and inform the design of larger trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT05582772).

Understanding the incidence, duration, and severity of symptoms through daily symptom monitoring among frail and non-frail older patients receiving metastatic prostate cancer treatments.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) experience high symptom burden associated with treatment. Frailty may exacerbate treatment toxicity. The aim of this study was to explore short-term treatment toxicity in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Older adults with metastatic prostate cancer starting chemotherapy, androgen-receptor-axis targeted therapies, or radium-223 participated in a prospective, multicentre, observational study. Participants self-reported symptoms daily using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System for one treatment cycle via internet or telephone. The most common moderate-to-severe symptoms (score≥4), their duration, and the proportion of participants who experienced improvements in symptom severity (score<4) after reporting moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline were determined using descriptive statistics. Once-weekly symptom questionnaires were administered and analyzed using linear mixed effect models. Symptom incidence, duration, and frailty associations were assessed using t-tests and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Ninety participants completed the study (mean age=77 years [standard deviation=6.1], 42% frail [Vulnerable Elders Survey≥3]). The most common moderate-to-severe symptoms across cohorts were fatigue (46.8%), insomnia (42.9%), poor wellbeing (41.2%), pain (37.5%), and decreased appetite (37.1%). Poor wellbeing had a higher incidence in frail participants (62.5% in frail vs. 31.4% in non-frail, p=0.039). Symptom duration varied across cohorts and between frail and non-frail participants. Among participants who reported moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline, no more than 15% improved in any symptom. There were statistically significant improvements in weekly symptoms for fatigue, decreased appetite, and insomnia in the chemotherapy cohort only. DISCUSSION: Limitations include a short follow-up duration, lack of a control group, and few radium-223 participants. Regular symptom monitoring can help clinicians understand temporal patterns and durations of symptoms and inform supportive care approaches.

A latent profile analysis of resilience and their relation to differences in sleep quality in patients with lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sleep problems are a significant issue in patients with lung cancer, and resilience is a closely related factor. However, few studies have identified subgroups of resilience and their relationship with sleep quality. This study aimed to investigate whether there are different profiles of resilience in patients with lung cancer, to determine the sociodemographic characteristics of each subgroup, and to determine the relationship between resilience and sleep quality in different subgroups. METHODS: A total of 303 patients with lung cancer from four tertiary hospitals in China completed the General Sociodemographic sheet, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Latent profile analysis was applied to explore the latent profiles of resilience. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the sociodemographic variables in each profile, and ANOVA was used to explore the relationships between resilience profiles and sleep quality. RESULTS: The following three latent profiles were identified: the "high-resilience group" (30.2%), the "moderate-resilience group" (46.0%), and the "low-resilience group" (23.8%). Gender, place of residence, and average monthly household income significantly influenced the distribution of resilience in patients with lung cancer. CONCLUSION: The resilience patterns of patients with lung cancer varied. It is suggested that health care providers screen out various types of patients with multiple levels of resilience and pay more attention to female, rural, and poor patients. Additionally, individual differences in resilience may provide an actionable means for addressing sleep problems.

Leave no one behind: A global survey of the current state of geriatric oncology practice by SIOG national representatives.

INTRODUCTION: The Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations include a commitment to "leave no one behind" as a universal goal. To achieve this in geriatric oncology (GO) worldwide, it is important to understand the current state of GO at an international level. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) has several National Representatives (NRs) who act as SIOG's delegates in their respective countries. The NRs took part in this international survey exploring the state of GO practice, identifying barriers and solutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The NRs answered open-ended questions by email from February 2020 to October 2022. The questionnaire domains included the demographic information of older adults for their countries, and the NRs' opinions on whether GO is developing, what the barriers are to developing GO, and proposed actions to remove these barriers. The demographic data of each country reported in the survey was adjusted using literature and database searches. RESULTS: Twenty-one of thirty countries with NRs (70%) participated in this questionnaire study: 12 European, four Asian, two North American, two South American, and one Oceanian. The proportion of the population aged ≥75 years varied from 2.2% to 15.8%, and the average life expectancy also varied from 70 years to 86 years. All NRs reported that GO was developing in their country; four NRs (18%) reported that GO was well developed. Although all NRs agreed that geriatric assessment was useful, only three reported that it was used day-to-day in their countries' clinical practice (14%). The major barriers identified were the lack of (i) evidence to support GO use, (ii) awareness and interest in GO, and (iii) resources (time, manpower, and funding). The major proposed actions were to (i) provide new evidence through clinical trials specific for GO patients, (ii) stimulate awareness through networking, and (iii) deliver educational materials and information to healthcare providers and medical students. DISCUSSION: This current survey has identified the barriers to GO and proposed actions that could remove them. Broader awareness seems to be essential to implementing GO. Additional actions are needed to develop GO within countries and can be supported through international partnerships.

Access to cancer clinical trials for racialised older adults: an equity-focused rapid scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: The intersection of race and older age compounds existing health disparities experienced by historically marginalised communities. Therefore, racialised older adults with cancer are more disadvantaged in their access to cancer clinical trials compared with age-matched counterparts. To determine what has already been published in this area, the rapid scoping review question are: what are the barriers, facilitators and potential solutions for enhancing access to cancer clinical trials among racialised older adults? METHODS: We will use a rapid scoping review methodology in which we follow the six-step framework of Arksey and O'Malley, including a systematic search of the literature with abstract and full-text screening to be conducted by two independent reviewers, data abstraction by one reviewer and verification by a second reviewer using an Excel data abstraction sheet. Articles focusing on persons aged 18 and over who identify as a racialised person with cancer, that describe therapies/therapeutic interventions/prevention/outcomes related to barriers, facilitators and solutions to enhancing access to and equity in cancer clinical trials will be eligible for inclusion in this rapid scoping review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All data will be extracted from published literature. Hence, ethical approval and patient informed consent are not required. The findings of the scoping review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at international conferences.

How representative are participants in geriatric oncology clinical trials? The case of the 5C RCT in geriatric oncology: A cross-sectional comparison to a geriatric oncology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Frail older adults make up a substantial portion of the older adult population. However, frail patients are often excluded from randomized controlled trials. This underrepresentation restricts the extent to which trial findings can be generalized to this population. We compared a sample from the Canadian 5C Randomized Controlled Trial investigating comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in the geriatric oncology setting in terms of frailty to patients referred to the Older Adults with Cancer Clinic (OACC) to determine if the trial sample was representative of the normal geriatric oncology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline CGA data of 5C Trial participants seen at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM), were compared to data from OACC patients that were seen during the duration of the 5C trial (between April 2018 and April 2020) and that satisfied the 5C inclusion criteria. To assess the frailty of samples, sex, age, disease site, comorbidity level, medical optimization, social supports, functional status, falls risk, nutrition, cognition, and mood were compared between 5C participants and OACC patients using Fisher's exact and independent samples t-test. RESULTS: A sample of 115 5C participants and 205 OACC patients were included. The mean age of 5C participants and OACC patients was 75.4 and 81.6 years, respectively (p < 0.001). The distribution of disease sites was significantly different between the samples (p < 0.001) and OACC patients were also significantly more impaired compared to 5C participants in comorbidity (23.4% versus 10.4% high comorbidity) (p = 0.001), IADL dependence (55.1% versus 42.6%) (p = 0.036), impaired physical function (70.6% versus 31.3%) (p < 0.001), falls risk (67.8% versus 27%) (p < 0.001), impaired nutrition (55.6% versus 40.9%) (p = 0.014), and cognition (47.2% versus 10%) (p < 0.001). There were no differences in sex, medication optimization, poor social supports, and impaired mood between the samples. DISCUSSION: The 5C sample was less frail and younger than patients seen in the geriatric oncology clinic. Finding strategies to address barriers to the inclusion of frailer older adults is important to increase their representation in future trials to allow findings to be generalized to this vulnerable population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03154671.

Assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-related outcomes in randomized cancer clinical trials for older adults: Results of DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative.

As older adults with cancer are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCT), there is limited evidence on which to rely for treatment decisions for this population. Commonly used RCT endpoints for the assessment of treatment efficacy are more often tumor-centered (e.g., progression-free survival). These endpoints may not be as relevant for the older patients who present more often with comorbidities, non-cancer-related deaths, and treatment toxicity. Moreover, their expectation and preferences are likely to differ from younger adults. The DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative combines a broad expertise, in geriatric oncology and clinical research, with interest in cancer RCT that include older patients with cancer. In order to guide researchers and clinicians coordinating cancer RCT involving older patients with cancer, the experts reviewed the literature on relevant domains to assess using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-related outcomes, as well as available tools related to these domains. Domains considered relevant by the panel of experts when assessing treatment efficacy in RCT for older patients with cancer included functional autonomy, cognition, depression and nutrition. These were based on published guidelines from international societies and from regulatory authorities as well as minimum datasets recommended to collect in RCT including older adults with cancer. In addition, health-related quality of life, patients' symptoms, and satisfaction were also considered by the panel. With regards to tools for the assessment of these domains, we highlighted that each tool has its own strengths and limitations, and very few had been validated in older adults with cancer. Further studies are thus needed to validate these tools in this specific population and define the minimum clinically important difference to use when developing RCTs in this population. The selection of the most relevant tool should thus be guided by the RCT research question, together with the specific properties of the tool.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Geriatric Assessment and Management in Older Adults With Cancer: Economic Evaluation Within 5C Trial.

PURPOSE: Geriatric assessment (GA) is a guideline-recommended approach to optimize cancer management in older adults. We conducted a cost-utility analysis alongside the 5C randomized controlled trial to compare GA and management (GAM) plus usual care (UC) against UC alone in older adults with cancer. METHODS: The economic evaluation, conducted from societal and health care payer perspectives, used a 12-month time horizon. The Canadian 5C study randomly assigned patients to receive GAM or UC. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using the EuroQol five dimension-5L questionnaire and health care utilization using cost diaries and chart reviews. We evaluated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) for the full sample and preselected subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were included, of whom 173 received GAM and 177 UC. At 12 months, the average QALYs per patient were 0.728 and 0.751 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔQALY, -0.023 [95% CI, -0.076 to 0.028]). Considering a societal perspective, the total average costs (in 2021 Canadian dollars) per patient were $46,739 and $45,177 for GAM and UC, respectively (ΔCost, $1,563 [95% CI, -$6,583 to $10,403]). At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $50,000/QALY, GAM was not cost-effective compared with UC (INMB, -$2,713 [95% CI, -$11,767 to $5,801]). The INMB was positive ($2,984 [95% CI, -$7,050 to $14,179]; probability of being cost-effective, 72%) for patients treated with curative intent, but remained negative for patients treated with palliative intent (INMB, -$9,909 [95% CI, -$24,436 to $4,153]). Findings were similar considering a health care payer perspective. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first cost-utility analysis of GAM in cancer. GAM was cost-effective for patients with cancer treated with curative but not with palliative intent. The study provides further considerations for future adoption of GAM in practice.

Defining an Abnormal Geriatric Assessment: Which Deficits Matter Most?

At present, there is no clear definition of what constitutes an abnormal geriatric assessment (GA) in geriatric oncology. Various threshold numbers of abnormal GA domains are often used, but how well these are associated with treatment plan modification (TPM) and whether specific GA domains are more important in this context remains uncertain. A retrospective review of the geriatric oncology clinic database at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, including new patients seen for treatment decision making from May 2015 to June 2022, was conducted. Logistic regression modelling was performed to determine the association between various predictor variables (including the GA domains and numerical thresholds) and TPM. The study cohort (n = 736) had a mean age of 80.7 years, 46.1% was female, and 78.3% had a VES-13 score indicating vulnerability (≥3). In the univariable analysis, the best-performing threshold number of abnormal domains based on area under the curve (AUC) was 4 (AUC 0.628). The best-performing multivariable model (AUC 0.704) included cognition, comorbidities, and falls risk. In comparison, the multivariable model with the sole addition of the threshold of 4 had an AUC of 0.689. Overall, an abnormal GA may be best defined as one with abnormalities in the domains of cognition, comorbidities, and falls risk. The optimal numerical threshold to predict TPM is 4.

Effectiveness of geriatric assessment and management in older cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Frailty and multimorbidity among older cancer patients affect treatment tolerance and efficacy. Comprehensive geriatric assessment and management is recommended to optimize cancer treatment, but its effect on various outcomes remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cost-effectiveness studies comparing comprehensive geriatric assessment (with or without implementation of recommendations) to usual care in older cancer patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane trials from inception to January 27, 2023, for RCTs and cost-effectiveness studies. Pooled estimates for outcomes were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: A total of 19 full-text articles representing 17 RCTs were included. Average participant age was 72-80 years, and 31%-62% were female. Comprehensive geriatric assessment type, mode of delivery, and evaluated outcomes varied across studies. Meta-analysis revealed no difference in risk of mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.08. 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 1.29), hospitalization (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.77 to 1.10), early treatment discontinuation (RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.67 to 1.19), initial dose reduction (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.26), and subsequent dose reduction (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.09). However, the risk of treatment toxicity was statistically significantly lower in the comprehensive geriatric assessment group (RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.86). No cost-effectiveness studies were identified. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual care, comprehensive geriatric assessment was not associated with a difference in risk of mortality, hospitalization, treatment discontinuation, and dose reduction but was associated with a lower risk of treatment toxicity indicating its potential to optimize cancer treatment in this population. Further research is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness.

Impact of COVID-19 on older adults with cancer and their caregivers' cancer treatment experiences study: The ICE-OLD study.

The COVID-19 pandemic and health services impacts related to physical distancing posed many challenges for older adults with cancer. The goal of this study was to examine the impact of the pandemic on cancer treatment plans and cancer treatment experiences of older adults (ie, aged 65 years and older) and their caregiver' experiences of caring for older adults during the pandemic to highlight gaps in care experienced. In this multi-centre qualitative study guided by an interpretive descriptive research approach we interviewed older adults diagnosed with cancer and caregivers caring for them. Participants were recruited via cancer treatment centres in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario (Vancouver and Toronto), Canada, and through an online ad sent out through patient advocacy organization newsletters. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and data were analyzed using an interpretive thematic analysis approach. A total of 27 individuals (17 older adults, 52.9% female; 10 caregivers, 90% female) participated in interviews lasting on average 45 minutes. Older adults with cancer described many impacts and pressures created by the pandemic on their cancer experiences, though they generally felt that the pandemic did not impact treatment decisions made and access to care. We grouped our findings into two main themes with their accompanying sub-themes, related to: (1) alterations in the individual and dyadic cancer experience; and (2) navigating health and cancer systems during the pandemic. The additional stressors the pandemic placed on older adults during their treatment and decision-making process and their caregivers expose the need to create or avail additional supports for future disruptions in care.

Cancer treatment-related decision-making among culturally and linguistically diverse older adults with cancer: A scoping review by the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Nursing and Allied Health Interest Group.

INTRODUCTION: Countries with large economies are observing a growing number of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) older adults, many of whom will be affected by cancer. Little is known about the experiences and factors that influence cancer treatment decision-making in this population. The purposes of this scoping review are: (1) to summarize the published literature on cancer treatment-related decision-making with this population; and (2) to identify potential differences in how cancer treatment decisions are made compared to non-CALD older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley and Levac methods, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review Guidelines. We conducted a comprehensive multidatabase search, screening 1,139 titles/abstracts. Following data abstraction, we analyzed the data using tabular and narrative summary. RESULTS: We extracted data from six studies that met the inclusion criteria: four quantitative and two qualitative; five from the United States and one from Canada. Three themes were identified: (1) barriers to decision-making, (2) the influence of family and friends on decisionmaking, and (3) differences in uptake and types of treatment received between CALD and non-CALD older adults. DISCUSSION: This comprehensive review of treatment decision-making among CALD older adults with cancer highlights the paucity of research in this area. The findings are limited to North American populations and may not represent experiences in other regions of the world. Future research should focus on studying their treatment-related decision-making experiences to improve the quality of care for this vulnerable population.

Implementing geriatric assessment and management for older Canadians with cancer: Adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention, results of the 5C study.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) is recommended by professional organizations and recently several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits in multiple health outcomes. GAM typically leads to one or more recommendations for the older adult on how to optimize their health. However, little is known about how well recommendations are adhered to. Understanding these issues is vital to designing GAM trials and clinical programs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the number of GAM recommendations made and adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention in a multicentre RCT of GAM for older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel RCT conducted in eight hospitals across Canada. Each centre kept a detailed recruitment and retention log. The intervention teams documented adherence to their recommendations. Medical records were also reviewed to assess which recommendations were adhered to. Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 members of the intervention teams and 11 oncology team members to assess implementation of the study and the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 350 participants who were enrolled, 173 were randomized to the intervention arm. Median number of recommendations was seven. Mean adherence to recommendations based on the GAM was 69%, but it varied by type of recommendation, ranging from 98% for laboratory tests to 28% for psychosocial/psychiatry oncology referrals. There was no difference in the number of recommendations or non-adherence to recommendations by sex, level of frailty, or functional status. Oncologists and intervention team members were satisfied with the study implementation and intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: Adherence to recommendations was variable. Adherence to laboratory investigations and further imaging were generally high but much lower for recommendations regarding psychosocial support. Further collaborative work with older adults with cancer is needed to understand how to optimize the intervention to be consistent with patient goals, priorities, and values to ensure maximal impact on health outcomes.

Daily physical activity monitoring in older adults with metastatic prostate cancer on active treatment: Feasibility and associations with toxicity.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity may be associated with cancer treatment toxicity, but generalizability to geriatric oncology is unclear. As many older adults have low levels of physical activity and technology use, this area needs further exploration. We evaluated the feasibility of daily step count monitoring and the association between step counts and treatment-emergent symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults aged 65+ starting treatment (chemotherapy, enzalutamide/abiraterone, or radium-223) for metastatic prostate cancer were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Participants reported step counts (measured via smartphone) and symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale) daily for one treatment cycle (i.e., 3-4 weeks). Embedded semi-structured interviews were performed upon completion of the study. The feasibility of daily monitoring was evaluated with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. The predictive validity of a decline in daily steps (compared to pre-treatment baseline) for the emergence of symptoms was examined using sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). Associations between a 15% decline in steps and the emergence of moderate (4-6/10) to severe (7-10/10) symptoms and pain in the next 24 h were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 90 participants, 47 engaged in step count monitoring (median age = 75, range = 65-88; 52.2% participation rate). Daily physical activity monitoring was found to be feasible (94% retention rate; 90.5% median response rate) with multiple patient-reported benefits including increased self-awareness and motivation to engage in physical activity. During the first treatment cycle, instances of a 15% decline in steps were common (n = 37, 78.7%), as was the emergence of moderate to severe symptoms overall (n = 40, 85.1%) and pain (n = 26, 55.3%). The predictive validity of a 15% decline in steps on the emergence of moderate to severe symptoms was good (sensitivity = 81.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 68.7-95.0; PPV = 73.0%, 95% CI = 58.7-87.3), although the PPV for pain was poor (sensitivity = 77.8%, 95% CI = 58.6-97.0; PPV = 37.8%, 95% CI = 22.2-53.5). In the regression models, changes in daily physical activity were not associated with symptoms or pain. DISCUSSION: Changes in physical activity had modest ability to predict moderate to severe symptoms overall. Although participation was suboptimal, daily activity monitoring in older adults with cancer appears feasible and may have other uses such as improving physical activity levels. Further studies are warranted.

Predictors and effects of toxicity experienced by older adults with cancer receiving systemic therapy in a randomized clinical trial of geriatric assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults represent a large segment of the oncology population, however, they remain underrepresented in clinical research. Treatment of older adults is often extrapolated using data from younger and fitter patients, which may not be appropriate. Furthermore the implications of toxicity from treatment can be greater for this population. Predicting toxicity from treatment and its effect on quality of life and functional status for older adults therefore is important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from a clinical trial of geriatric assessment and management for Canadian elders with cancer (5C study). We assessed whether the baseline Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) toxicity score, G8 score, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance predicted grade 3-5 toxicity using logistic regression and pattern mixture models. We also assessed the impact of toxicity on quality of life and functional decline. Patients were followed for six months. RESULTS: Three hundred sixteen patients were included. Mean age was 76 years old and 40% of patients were female. One hundred nineteen patients (38%) experienced at least one grade 3-5 toxicity. Neither the CARG toxicity score, G8, or ECOG were predictive of grade 3-5 toxicity. Patients who experienced grade 3-5 toxicity were more likely to have functional impairments over time (odds ratio 3.71, p = 0.03). However, they maintained their quality of life. DISCUSSION: In this secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of geriatric assessment and management we did not find any predictors of grade 3-5 toxicity. Patients who did experience toxicity were more likely to report functional decline over time. Older adults who do experience treatment related toxicity may benefit from increased supports. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT0315467.

Loneliness in older adults living with cancer: A scoping review of the quantitative and qualitative evidence on behalf of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Nursing and Allied Health Interest Group.

INTRODUCTION: Loneliness is common in older adults. Cancer and its treatments can heighten loneliness and result in poor outcomes. However, little is known about loneliness in older adults with cancer. Our objective was to provide an overview of the prevalence of loneliness, contributing factors, evolution during the cancer trajectory, impact on treatment, and interventions to reduce loneliness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review including studies on loneliness in adults with cancer aged ≥65. Original, published studies of any designs (excluding case reports) were included. A two-step screening process was performed. RESULTS: Out of 8,720 references, 19 studies (11 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 2 mixed-methods), mostly from the United States, Netherlands, and/or Belgium, and most published from 2010, were included. Loneliness was assessed by the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, and the UCLA loneliness scale. Up to 50% of older adults felt lonely. Depression and anxiety were often correlated with loneliness. Loneliness may increase over the first 6-12 months during treatment. One study assessed the feasibility of an intervention aiming at reducing primarily depression and anxiety and secondarily, loneliness in patients with cancer aged ≥70 after five 45-min sessions with a mental health professional. No studies investigated the impact of loneliness on cancer care and health outcomes. DISCUSSION: This review documents the scarcity of literature on loneliness in older adults with cancer. The negative impacts of loneliness on health in the general population are well known; a better understanding of the magnitude and impact of loneliness in older adults with cancer is urgently warranted.